Talk:Incubus/@comment-25075355-20150913135236/@comment-12776-20150920084541
"As in the spirit energy example, that was a perfectly good analogy which assists understanding of the phenomenon, it doesn't confuse it. Put it back in please." You may fail to see it, but it's pretty clear to here that you have problem to separate your opinion from fact (and it already confuse someone that it's fact, so your arguement is moot). You may think it make sense, but that does not make it fact. "Also, I hardly think you have any right to accuse me of inserting opinion into articles when you don't just change the article, you change THE ACTUAL ENCYCLOPEDIA TRANSLATION to fit your own interpretation." If you mean the arguement we had on Lilim, you're now just blatantly lie. You're one who add that info out of nowhere, I think it's fishy but after check on the book it appear to be true, although I still though the translation is off. All I done with that paragraph is moved it where it belong because it's clearly not the last paragraph in the book profile and the message seem to be expansion of the second-to-last paragraph. It's when we finally find out that the paragraph isn't MGR translation that we decide to remove it altogether. So you're just accused me there for something I haven't done at all. It's you who changed translation by insert that paragraph. "I was going to say that this is a rather shameless example of you claiming "It's a-OK when I do it, but it's super-bad when you do it". Something Ilias thinks that Kuruni disagrees with? Ilias is pushing his opinion as fact, what a troll! Something Kuruni thinks that Ilias disagrees with? No this is real fact!" Again, you proved to have problem for identify "fact" from "opinion", I provided source backup my statement that it isn't just my opinion. Somehow you fail to see why it's different from your baseless claim. "But then as A Wikia points out below, you are actually, literally wrong about the NTR thing and he has the source to prove it, so..." Except not, the source he provide actually support mine. Bolded by me for to make it stand out. Basically, it says "In the NTR situation, there is one where the protagonist and the heroine are '''in a state of mutual love', and she gets stolen by another man, and there is one where the status is that protagonist has unrequited love for the heroine and she gets stolen by another man."'' The protagonist and the heroine are in a state of mutual love, clear enough? He said one thing, but the data he provided said another. Once again, you failed to identify his opinion from actual data. So, by corollary, it's pretty clear that just because Kenkou says it doesn't mean it's official. Bye-bye, "Twitter and Q&As are canon". Party already answer it nicely for most part, so I will just pointout some fact you somehow fail to see. #. I said just because Kenkou draw it doesn't mean it's official. Understand the words "just because"? It mean "him being artist alone" doesn't make it official. There're other factor that make the work count as canon. #. Kenkou draw derivative works, but the stories is writen by another, not him. He's likely give some advice while they work together, but fact that Fallen Brides stories contradict each other in make it clear that he give them much freedom. Really, it's like I said "Just because it can fly doesn't mean it's bird." while discussing bat then you point at an ostrich and say "Then that thing isn't bird either." Which doesn't has anything to does with my statement. # Again, his message on the Kurobinega website (so no, this isn't chat) point out that he totally intend for his explanation to count. I said interpretation of MGE is entrusted to readers, so if they only enjoy such imagination, it was OK. However, they aggressively insisted to others that such interpretation was "canon", and declare that they should ignore my exploration because of "death of author", or it isnt written in books. I think such act is a distortion of the setting, not "interpretation". And yes, this mean you're doing it full MGU style here. insisted to others that such interpretation was "canon"? Checked. declare that they should ignore my exploration because of "death of author", or it isnt written in books.? Checked Thankfully our admins decide to do it more of MGR style. "Oh, well, I'm sorry I didn't reproduce the entire hadith from the Qu'ran with all the exceptions and inclusions." You divert my point (for real too), the point is that you pick the part that cause huge mess back then, and still don't accept that it's your fault even now. "I accepted I was wrong about the Chaos Gods, because there I actually was wrong." You're trying to use an exception to prove the rule. Yes, you do indeed try to not put blatant BS in article, but you still pass opinion as fact in article. And once tried to sneak-in a removed opinion back in article which make it clear enough that you aren't above using underhand tactic. Ironically, those opinion not count as blatant BS (but it's still just your opinion) only because Kenkou does give us some freedom of interpretion and I keep that in mind (and thus so far I only remove those opinion instead of make charge of "inserting false info" and request to ban you), not because you're almost never wrong, that's just delusion. Too bad, it's clear in this discussion that you're don't have same respect to another opinion.